Torque 3D Development - Mass Market Hardware
by Brett Seyler · 05/15/2009 (4:11 am) · 78 comments
Good morning GG'ers! In our last Torque 3D blog, there were some really interesting discussion points in the comments that happened to mirror our development focus and discussion internally. Primarily, many of you wanted to know how Torque 3D performs on mass market hardware. This is an important question, and one we pay very close attention to so that we're able to reach the broadest possible audience with our own games, like those on InstantAction.We've made a lot of changes in Torque 3D. Some of the biggest changes, like those to terrain, lighting, rendering, physics and PostFX have been implemented with target hardware far more powerful than the median machine. Even so, we've taken great care to offer alternative subsystems, like Basic Lighting, to allow developers to achieve mass market compatiblitiy with their game. In some cases, terrain for example, the new system gives better performance, and a better appearance, than with the old.
We have Torque 3D developers who optimize and test against hardware like netbook PCs and even Mac Minis. Some of this testing has been going on for months now, and thanks to careful forethought given to each of the revamped subsystems, we have some very promising results on mass market hardware to share already.
Netbooks, like the one shown above, are phenomenally low-powered machines, but they can still run Torque 3D. The pureLIGHT demo (or "Den") runs at over 25fps with an Intel 950 and Atom processor, even with a very high polygon skinned character! I haven't formally introduced pureLIGHT, but it will be my pleasure to do so here in the near future. It's a wonderful product for baking high-quality lightmaps into any scene, and that makes it a GREAT fit for mass market hardware specs.
Even with many optimizations to go, Torque 3D will run now on mass market hardware. So what's our min spec? I wouldn't suggest aiming for anything less than the Intel 950 chipset (what's inside that Samsung netbook above). This is by FAR the most common current hardware configuration for online gamers (casual audience included). InstantAction stats confirm this. So do many other sources. Aiming lower than this with Torque 3D is really going to take an exceptional effort, and probably isn't advisable if you want to reach the broadest audience with the nicest possible product.
There are exceptions to the Intel 950 min spec...we will be providing paths from Torque 3D to the Wii, and to the iPhone. The latter in particular requires a tremendous amount of squeezing to get something that looks like a nice game running fast, but the audience is there and we'll do it. We really want to stress that Torque 3D is targeting COMPATIBILITY with mass market hardware. The way you design your content determines, more than anything else, how well your game will perform. Keep those polygon counts / fill within your target hardware specification, and there's nothing to stop you.
For us, creating a game engine, watching gaming hardware trends is a must, both at the high-end and low-end. It's also key to view all potential audiences (core and casual for example) when creating a game. Though it's a crowd that tilts core, Steam has a massive gamer audience. Looking at their Hardware Survey shows some very clear trends developers would be wise to follow.
The Intel 950 chipset share is quite small here. So is the "SM 2.0 and below" share. Ignoring these customers and their expectations has it's price as well. What's best? Do both. Provide a reasonably high-end experience on high-end hardware, and maintain compatibility with mass market machines. Torque 3D enables you to do this, but it's not automatic. Much of your task is appropriate content generation and smart design, but Torque 3D ensures you'll have both high-end and mass market routes available.
How does Torque 3D stack up with previous generations of Torque? Generally, on desktop and notebook computers that have integrated video chipsets, Torque 3D outperforms TGE with similar art content including improved terrain and improved water. Of course this is with much cleaner graphics code that's better optimized for Direct3D on Windows, and OpenGL on Mac.
Developers targeting mass market hardware should really be encouraged to adopt Torque 3D. The tools allow for much greater productivity and the content pipeline is MUCH easier to work with. On top of all that, Torque 3D gives you improved terrain and water at equal or better performance than TGE / TGEA. Torque 3D is designed to meet our goals as independent game developers, and yours as well, so you can expect continued improvement in this area throughout our development.
That's it for this week! We're testing Beta 2 over the weekend in the hopes of posting it up for you all next week. Again, please keep up the great feedback on your experience with Beta 1.
More development blogs to come. This is post #20.
Torque 3D development blogs:
- Post #1 - Kickoff
- Post #2 - Apparatus and Warrior Camp
- Post #3 - Luma's racing kit
- Post #4 - Josh Engebretson and Web Publishing
- Post #5 - Pricing and Licensing
- Post #6 - Pricing and Licensing CONTINUED
- Post #7 - Wetness & Precipitation
- Post #8 - Screeen Space Ambient Occlusion (SSAO)
- Post #9 - Matt Langley and the Torque Launcher
- Post #10 - Chris Robertson and Collada
- Post #11 - Depth of Field
- Post #12 - Advanced Lighting
- Post #13 - Soft Particles
- Post #14 - World Editor
- Post #15 - Pricing and Licensing ANNOUNCED!
- Post #16 - GDC Live Edition
- Post #17 - River & Road Editors
- Post #18 - Beta is UP!
- Post #19 - Light Rays, Undercity, and the Material Editor
- Post #20 - Mass Market Hardware
- Post #21 - Beta: Part Deux
- Post #22 - Marching Towards Beta 3
- Post #23 - pureLIGHT
- Post #24 - Lighting, Terrain, and Cloth
- Post #25 - Beta 3!
- Post #26 - Coming Soon!
About the author
Since 2007, I've done my best to steer Torque's development and brand toward the best opportunities in games middleware.
#2
Although -I must confess-, I feel afraid of buying it all, as so many praises sound a bit like pure marketing, if half what you said is true, the tech is aweomse.
05/15/2009 (4:50 am)
VERY interesting post Brett, thank you.Although -I must confess-, I feel afraid of buying it all, as so many praises sound a bit like pure marketing, if half what you said is true, the tech is aweomse.
#3
But DAMN, it's taking willpower not to jump in right now! Luckily, I have modeling work to keep me busy this weekend.
05/15/2009 (5:01 am)
REALLY keen for Beta 2, Beta 1 is great stuff and I'm holding out for Beta 2 before I start porting SoW across, just to minimize hassle. But DAMN, it's taking willpower not to jump in right now! Luckily, I have modeling work to keep me busy this weekend.
#4
05/15/2009 (5:37 am)
Great Blog, It's good to know that my laptop can run T3D too, thanks Brett! 
#5
Nah, that's actually pretty cool. I've been running Torque 3D on a laptop for a while now, but apparently it's better than some peoples' desktop computer ;)
It's good that someone took the time to do research and determine a lowest common denominator. Now if only more developers would make use of or realize the importance of "appropriate content generation and smart design."
05/15/2009 (6:37 am)
They still make netbooks? You should take that thing and throw it away! Get a better one :DNah, that's actually pretty cool. I've been running Torque 3D on a laptop for a while now, but apparently it's better than some peoples' desktop computer ;)
It's good that someone took the time to do research and determine a lowest common denominator. Now if only more developers would make use of or realize the importance of "appropriate content generation and smart design."
#6
"Provide a reasonably high-end experience on high-end hardware, and maintain compatibility with mass market machines. Torque 3D enables you to do this, but it's not automatic. Much of your task is appropriate content generation and smart design,"
This is an interesting statement. "not automatic" could mean so many things in this context, so let me ask you few more questions:
1) Are there event handlers to select appropriate materials/shaders/models based on current video card specs?
2) Are there hardware profiles in T3D that can be defined for different hardware groups to have (let say) LOW (ugly), MED (nice), MED-HIGH (great) and HIGH (beautiful) hardware settings that user can select from (let say) a game menu or we can run a performance test on game start to force the game into one of those profiles?
3) Or, we still have to create 2 different executables/game bundles for low and high end systems (very undesirable)?
If you guys (GG) manage to run T3D on Intel 950 with 25 fps with decent game environment (like a NES platform game) - that's a good sign.
Thanks!
05/15/2009 (6:45 am)
@Brett, thank you for taking time to clear few points that I was bitching about in other posts ;)"Provide a reasonably high-end experience on high-end hardware, and maintain compatibility with mass market machines. Torque 3D enables you to do this, but it's not automatic. Much of your task is appropriate content generation and smart design,"
This is an interesting statement. "not automatic" could mean so many things in this context, so let me ask you few more questions:
1) Are there event handlers to select appropriate materials/shaders/models based on current video card specs?
2) Are there hardware profiles in T3D that can be defined for different hardware groups to have (let say) LOW (ugly), MED (nice), MED-HIGH (great) and HIGH (beautiful) hardware settings that user can select from (let say) a game menu or we can run a performance test on game start to force the game into one of those profiles?
3) Or, we still have to create 2 different executables/game bundles for low and high end systems (very undesirable)?
If you guys (GG) manage to run T3D on Intel 950 with 25 fps with decent game environment (like a NES platform game) - that's a good sign.
Thanks!
#7
Basic runs really well, advanced with sun shadow kills it, advanced with no shadows is okay.
Not bad for Beta 1 and a machine I never intended to do any 3D work with...
05/15/2009 (6:48 am)
I run and develop T3D on a previous gen Macbook laptop, which is duo Core2 + Intel X3500 GPU.Basic runs really well, advanced with sun shadow kills it, advanced with no shadows is okay.
Not bad for Beta 1 and a machine I never intended to do any 3D work with...
#8
So if I am seeing this correctly, T3D can still run on some low/mid level systems? If so what are the complete minimum specs?
05/15/2009 (8:03 am)
I'm Also looking forward to the answers to Tau's questions.So if I am seeing this correctly, T3D can still run on some low/mid level systems? If so what are the complete minimum specs?
#9
From Unity statistics, in 2009 Q2 almost 25% of machines are lower than pixel shader 2.0 (link). That is, lower in capabilities than Intel GMA 950. So depending on your target audience, I'd say GMA 950 is not necessarily the lowest you should target
Will T3D be able to run on fixed function or shader model 1.x hardware?
05/15/2009 (8:20 am)
In addition to Steam hardware stats (which reflect more of a traditional/core/AAA audience), I'd suggest looking into Unity hardware stats (which reflect more of a small game/casual/web audience; more than 10 million stat samples right now).From Unity statistics, in 2009 Q2 almost 25% of machines are lower than pixel shader 2.0 (link). That is, lower in capabilities than Intel GMA 950. So depending on your target audience, I'd say GMA 950 is not necessarily the lowest you should target
Will T3D be able to run on fixed function or shader model 1.x hardware?
#10
05/15/2009 (9:18 am)
Very good news! thank you. 
#11
--Josh
05/15/2009 (9:29 am)
I cannot speak for GG of course, but I think you are going to have problems if it doesn't support SM 1.x at least. It also depends on the size of your game at those levels as if you are targetting that crowd you are going to use very low poly designs. It is kind of scary to see how many Geforce 6100s are out there :-).--Josh
#12
05/15/2009 (9:38 am)
Very nice. Nice work GG! 
#13
05/15/2009 (10:24 am)
I ported several large game levels that historically stuttered in TGEA, to the new T3D and they run smooth and fast. So I can tell that the rendering is much better than it had been. I plan on trying this on several lower powered computers to see where it hits the wall.
#14
I am reading those charts a little differently than "almost 30%". I am seeing around 23% on Windows and only 6% on Mac. I am also wondering about the disparity on the survey between SM 1.0 and FF on Windows (less than 3% vs 19% and the same as software emulation?)... that seems a bit off... also, your guys own survey puts the Intel 950, which is what is running the pics in the blog, at over 14% on Windows AND Mac...
It is also important to recognize that consumers with a FF board are not exactly likely to hunt down drivers that will work (if they even exist) *and* break out a credit card to buy your game... and supporting that LOW of a spec with content could actually hurt your sales on better targets where people are actually buying 3d games!
05/15/2009 (10:41 am)
@Aras: It is great to see a Unity developer posting on our site.I am reading those charts a little differently than "almost 30%". I am seeing around 23% on Windows and only 6% on Mac. I am also wondering about the disparity on the survey between SM 1.0 and FF on Windows (less than 3% vs 19% and the same as software emulation?)... that seems a bit off... also, your guys own survey puts the Intel 950, which is what is running the pics in the blog, at over 14% on Windows AND Mac...
It is also important to recognize that consumers with a FF board are not exactly likely to hunt down drivers that will work (if they even exist) *and* break out a credit card to buy your game... and supporting that LOW of a spec with content could actually hurt your sales on better targets where people are actually buying 3d games!
#15
05/15/2009 (10:52 am)
Good blog. I have pretty much the same questions as Tau. Will there be a framework in place to select high/med/low quality for models/materials/shadows/etc? It's fairly unintuitive (and restrictive) to have to adjust the quality purely through the level editor.
#16
My theory on why there's so few SM1.x cards: there never existed a low end graphics card in that range. Before that, Intel 865 and GeForce 2/4MX ruled the world. After those came GeForce FX 5200 and Intel GMA 9xx as "the low end cards". The people who had SM1.x cards were most likely non-casual gamers, and have upgraded since then.
Of course the decision whether to support fixed function or not is up to the developer, taking into account his target audience etc. I was just pointing at another source of hardware statistics. Having more statistics never hurts :)
BTW, does T3D support fixed function rendering?
05/15/2009 (10:55 am)
@Josh: you're right, I edited my post to say "almost 25%" :)My theory on why there's so few SM1.x cards: there never existed a low end graphics card in that range. Before that, Intel 865 and GeForce 2/4MX ruled the world. After those came GeForce FX 5200 and Intel GMA 9xx as "the low end cards". The people who had SM1.x cards were most likely non-casual gamers, and have upgraded since then.
Of course the decision whether to support fixed function or not is up to the developer, taking into account his target audience etc. I was just pointing at another source of hardware statistics. Having more statistics never hurts :)
BTW, does T3D support fixed function rendering?
#17
Intel 950 is probably more than adequate for a low-end system. I doubt targeting a FF pipeline is realistic for T3D at this point.
Another thing I'm interested in that your chart there brings up, in relation to higher end systems, is DirectX 10 support. There are several nifty new features in DX10, and 28% of users have it, but based upon some comments Matt F made in IRC, I've come to understand that there are no plans for DX10 support in T3D. As DX10 is now 3 year old technology, it seems like something that a game engine that wants to be on the cutting edge should definitely have support for. DX11 will soon be relevant with Windows 7, it would be a shame to be 2 versions behind :p
05/15/2009 (11:03 am)
Good stuff. I'm also interested in Tau's questions. Those are some of the more important things I've felt Torque has lacked in regards to being able to target the widest range of hardware. Intel 950 is probably more than adequate for a low-end system. I doubt targeting a FF pipeline is realistic for T3D at this point.
Another thing I'm interested in that your chart there brings up, in relation to higher end systems, is DirectX 10 support. There are several nifty new features in DX10, and 28% of users have it, but based upon some comments Matt F made in IRC, I've come to understand that there are no plans for DX10 support in T3D. As DX10 is now 3 year old technology, it seems like something that a game engine that wants to be on the cutting edge should definitely have support for. DX11 will soon be relevant with Windows 7, it would be a shame to be 2 versions behind :p
#18
05/15/2009 (11:13 am)
@Gerald - The issue has always been that Vista adoption has been crap. Few games even bother targeting DX10. Its highly possible that in a future Torque 3D release you'll be seeing DX11 and no DX10.
#19
And that list on Wikipedia is nothing to scoff at. Unreal/Gears of War, Crysis, BattleForge, Assassin's Creed, H.A.W.X., S.T.A.L.K.E.R.... that's a pretty good laundry list.
And it makes close to 0 sense to support DX11 and not DX10, considering the level of similarity. But whatever floats your boat :p
05/15/2009 (11:33 am)
@Tom, huh? I would hardly call 28.28% of Steam users 'crap'.And that list on Wikipedia is nothing to scoff at. Unreal/Gears of War, Crysis, BattleForge, Assassin's Creed, H.A.W.X., S.T.A.L.K.E.R.... that's a pretty good laundry list.
And it makes close to 0 sense to support DX11 and not DX10, considering the level of similarity. But whatever floats your boat :p
#20
However, rumor has it with Windows 7, most XP users will be switching (what the poll's says anyways, but who knows).
Anyways, what you can do in DX10 you can do in DX9, more or less anyways, though DX10,11 has a few teqniques wich improves render speed because of instancing and such.
Just my few cents on this topic, all this marketing and sale stuff isnt my concern anyways :).
05/15/2009 (11:34 am)
@TomHowever, rumor has it with Windows 7, most XP users will be switching (what the poll's says anyways, but who knows).
Anyways, what you can do in DX10 you can do in DX9, more or less anyways, though DX10,11 has a few teqniques wich improves render speed because of instancing and such.
Just my few cents on this topic, all this marketing and sale stuff isnt my concern anyways :).
Torque 3D Owner Matt Huston
Atomic Banzai Games